Under Construction
From the court decisions on "Napster" to the current legislation trying to Outlaw Hyperlinks. this site is designed to give an informative perspective into current Laws which are attempting to stop the free flow of information on the internet.
In coining the term "intellectual property" itself is where we first begin to get into trouble. how can you define (to the letter of the law) what "intellectual property" is, exactly?
Digital Delima:
If a popular band such as Metallica is said to "own" there album(or rights to the album), just what part of the album do the own? Do they own the ones and zeros that are on the CD or do only own that specific combination of ones and zeros?
Lets say for a moment that "101001001010110101100111011010001010010101101011010110" is the digital representation of the "title" of a copyrighted album by a popular band. Is it now stated in law that they "OWN" that number?
If so I have a few "titles" that I would also like to copyright; "1" (the number one) for starters, Oh but wait the Attorneys say that I cannot copright a number such as "ONE" (or "1") because its too commonly used (everybody uses it)
So I would like to know what length (of digits) a number has to excede before it is considered to be "unique" enough to be "copyrightable" ?
May I copyright the number "101" ? no? well how about 1010?well how about the number one million, one hundred ten thousand, and one ? (1110001)
(I think you get my point)
If one number cant be copyrighted then no number can be (quite simly because there is no where to end)
If this "album" mentioned above which a band such as "Metallica" claimes right to is represented as a series of ones and zeros, then does that mean that i could change a single digit in that "number" and copyright it as a new album for myself?
Intangable thoughts In Tangeable Words:
I guess one of the underlying questions here is ; What exactly is it that we are claiming rights to when we copyright something?
are we claiming rights to the "feeling" or "sound" that the "property" conveys, or is it a matter of owning the specific combination of the words or "medium" in which the "property" is "written" ?
If it is the "feeling" of "sound" that is being "protected" then this also presents a problem. All "intelectual property" is intangable and thus has to be represented by a secondary "system" of symbolism and often times a "work" is being represented in several "systems" at once (some contained within others)
Lets take a song for example: A song is most often represented by "standard musical notation" as well as "tab" and vocal tracks
while these "systems" are formal enought to specifically define (through mathematical analisys) exactly what it is that it is representing. only through the "viewing" of the work can we tell what the song actually is.
If i were to read the above paragraphs into a recorder and then have it "copyrighted" It would be mine. I could grant or deny "permission" of reproduction to whom ever i wished.
but what if a person took this "work" and changed it (only by a word or two) would they be infringing on my rights? or would they be creating a new work (which they could then copyright as there own)?
what if a person were recording ther own "material" completely independent from mine , but it just so happens that they were playing MY material on a radio in the back ground (very quietly) while this recording process was taking place? What if this material of mine that inadvertantly got recorded in the back ground of the new material were being played backwards, or how about at half speed?
its still there its still retreavable and its still mine! so then I would like to know to what extent these legislators plan to inforce this new series of proposed laws. It seems like a slipery slope from one grey area to another.
From the court decisions on "Napster" to the current legislation trying to Outlaw Hyperlinks. this site is designed to give an informative perspective into current Laws which are attempting to stop the free flow of information on the internet.
In coining the term "intellectual property" itself is where we first begin to get into trouble. how can you define (to the letter of the law) what "intellectual property" is, exactly?
Digital Delima:
If a popular band such as Metallica is said to "own" there album(or rights to the album), just what part of the album do the own? Do they own the ones and zeros that are on the CD or do only own that specific combination of ones and zeros?
Lets say for a moment that "101001001010110101100111011010001010010101101011010110" is the digital representation of the "title" of a copyrighted album by a popular band. Is it now stated in law that they "OWN" that number?
If so I have a few "titles" that I would also like to copyright; "1" (the number one) for starters, Oh but wait the Attorneys say that I cannot copright a number such as "ONE" (or "1") because its too commonly used (everybody uses it)
So I would like to know what length (of digits) a number has to excede before it is considered to be "unique" enough to be "copyrightable" ?
May I copyright the number "101" ? no? well how about 1010?well how about the number one million, one hundred ten thousand, and one ? (1110001)
(I think you get my point)
If one number cant be copyrighted then no number can be (quite simly because there is no where to end)
If this "album" mentioned above which a band such as "Metallica" claimes right to is represented as a series of ones and zeros, then does that mean that i could change a single digit in that "number" and copyright it as a new album for myself?
Intangable thoughts In Tangeable Words:
I guess one of the underlying questions here is ; What exactly is it that we are claiming rights to when we copyright something?
are we claiming rights to the "feeling" or "sound" that the "property" conveys, or is it a matter of owning the specific combination of the words or "medium" in which the "property" is "written" ?
If it is the "feeling" of "sound" that is being "protected" then this also presents a problem. All "intelectual property" is intangable and thus has to be represented by a secondary "system" of symbolism and often times a "work" is being represented in several "systems" at once (some contained within others)
Lets take a song for example: A song is most often represented by "standard musical notation" as well as "tab" and vocal tracks
while these "systems" are formal enought to specifically define (through mathematical analisys) exactly what it is that it is representing. only through the "viewing" of the work can we tell what the song actually is.
If i were to read the above paragraphs into a recorder and then have it "copyrighted" It would be mine. I could grant or deny "permission" of reproduction to whom ever i wished.
but what if a person took this "work" and changed it (only by a word or two) would they be infringing on my rights? or would they be creating a new work (which they could then copyright as there own)?
what if a person were recording ther own "material" completely independent from mine , but it just so happens that they were playing MY material on a radio in the back ground (very quietly) while this recording process was taking place? What if this material of mine that inadvertantly got recorded in the back ground of the new material were being played backwards, or how about at half speed?
its still there its still retreavable and its still mine! so then I would like to know to what extent these legislators plan to inforce this new series of proposed laws. It seems like a slipery slope from one grey area to another.
posted by Unknown at
6:04 AM
